BHATERI Vs. BIJE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 16-11-1988, in CM No. 53-M of 1988, appellant was awarded maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. In addition to the maintenance pendente lite, she was also held entitled to litigation expenses of Rs. 1500/-. This appeal is pending since 1988, but the respondent has not paid any amount either towards maintenance pendente lite or litigation expenses. On reading of the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Hisar. I find that during the pendency of proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, maintenance had not been paid to the appellant. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the sole purpose of the respondent in not making payment to the appellant is to harass her A. Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar, 1961 AIR(P&H) 42 in the context of execution of the order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has held that there being no provision in the Civil Procedure Code under which pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses can be recovered, the Court has to exercise inherent power to advance the cause of justice though in the process the indigent spouse must benefit. The Court also held that when the Court is exercising this inherent power, then it has to take into consideration all circumstances of the case and then come to the conclusion whether the justice requires the proceedings to be adjourned or to be stayed till payment is made. In cases where defaulter's spouse has initiated proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, stay of proceedings may not be adequate and other steps may have to be taken to put the indigent spouse in funds to prosecution the proceedings. In the present case, respondent has been given enough opportunity to comply with the order, but he has neither complied with the order nor has given any reasonable ground for non-compliance of the order. In this view of the matter, decree of divorce passed in his favour on the ground of desertion deserves to be set aside.

(2.) Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Hisar, is set aside. In consequence thereof, petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed.